More Field Sobriety Test Hypocrisy

A Chicago Police officer, Richard Bolling who was charged with a fatal DUI crash in 2009, is now being claimed he passed a field sobriety test, AND a breathalyzer.   There are further claims that he did not receive any special treatment for being a police officer. 

So let's go over the norm...  You are involved in a fatal car accident, the police arrive.   Within minutes you would be issued a breathalyzer, if there was any alcohol at all on your breath, you would be arrested and processed since you just killed someone.   How did Richard Bolling get treated?

"It was four and a half hours after the crash, and only under pressure from an Internal Affairs sergeant, when Bolling submitted to a Breathalyzer and registered 0.079 percent, just under the legal limit of 0.08 percent, prosecutors said."

Yes... the lack of special treatment is VERY apparent in this case... 4.5 hours after the crash, he blew .001 under the legal limit... does this stink to anyone else, or just me?   It gets better though...

Prosecutors alleged in opening statements that Bolling, who was off-duty at the time, wasn’t given a field sobriety test until nearly two hours after he was arrested driving the wrong way down a street shortly after the crash. Officers at the scene said he passed the exam.

So he drove away from his accident... and got pulled over shortly after the crash going the wrong way on the roadway...   Meanwhile the same field sobriety test that is designed to incriminate non Law Enforcement Officials, managed to add evidence that Bolling wasn't impaired.   When the system is this broken, the only solution is to cut all funding to the offending agencies, and start them fresh with rules that prevent abuse.  

Of course his Law Enforcement Brothers were caught saying interesting things during the course of events:

According to court filings by prosecutors, an undisclosed superior officer was captured on a video recording at the crash scene telling Bolling he would “try to help you out as much as possible.”

Does this make sense to everyone now?   If you kill a 13 year old after drinking on the road, you are the scum of the earth, and many people would argue for the death penalty for you, or Lock you up for 20 years. But if a Police officer kills a 13 year old after drinking on the road... he's a great guy who just had an accident as illustrated by these media statements:

Bolling, who is expected to testify, joined the force in 1992 and had been working in the narcotics unit. The son of a retired Chicago police officer, Bolling received 20 honorable mentions and numerous department commendations and had no prior criminal record.

Imagine that, Bolling had no criminal record... hard to imagine he swung that feat, even though he BARELY got arrested for Vehicular Manslaughter!     The system doesn't work the same for you as it does for them, and then "they" wonder where the us vs. them attitude comes from.

Illinois State Police Ruining a record number of lives

Read this news that Illinois DUI arrests are on a record pace this year.  My favorite quote is from Capt. Jeffrey Patterson who has never stopped for 2 seconds to think about why these people are driving after having some drinks, he just dishes out the $10,000 tickets, and said:

“I don’t get it,” Patterson said. “There are ads about the penalties of drunk driving on the TV, on the radio, in newspapers, on billboards, they’re all over.”
Yet, he said, people continue to drive drunk. “I guess they think they’re not going to get caught,” Patterson said.

He doesn't get it?   It's really simple... in Illinois, people are miserable because they have few freedoms, and pay too much in property taxes, and drinking makes them feel good.   Our property taxes pay for everything except a decent public transportation system... buses, and trains run from the suburbs, into the cities, but it's near impossible to get from one suburb to another one that's only 12 miles away, without taking a 6 hour train ride into a city, and back out.  

Patterson, citizens know they might get caught, they refuse to live their lives under your boot of fear and intimidation... if you think controlling people's relaxation time is bad... you should try to come for our guns and see what happens.

As I showed before using the Illinois state police's own propaganda videos, the purpose of DUI stops in this state is not to keep other drivers safe.   You might say heavy fines, and life ruining criminal charges are appropriate for people irresponsibly using the roadway, and potentially endangering other drivers.   My response to that:  Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for the ISP to have a preemptive phone service that potential drivers could call and state they're intoxicated and have limited options to get home, can they sleep it off in the local PD?   The answer is, yes, it would be cheap, and very likely effective... but it wouldn't make the police any money, and wouldn't accomplish their ultimate goal, of ruining the lives of every citizen in this state. They WILL find you!



This video claims in America one person is killed by a drunk driver every 32 minutes, but in Illinois, one person is arrested for drunk driving every 10 minutes!?   What am I missing when the Math doesn't add up this much?   50,000 people per year, at an average cost of $10,000 per person... that makes DUIs a $500 BILLION a year economy for lawyers, judges and cops.   DUI enforcement should be about protecting people, not ruining people.

One bad Lake County deputy caught, the rest of them to go.

Before assuming that I am rabidly anti law enforcement, allow me to clarify my position. I love law enforcement, because it makes me, and everyone more free. I can leave my home without worrying about protecting my property, because law enforcement is out on patrol. I can live in comfort knowing help and assistance is a phone call away. What I get worked up over, is the different class of people my specific area has made out of law enforcement. They are no longer people, but rulers, allowed to kidnap, disarm, steal, wiretap, brandish, and of course disobey any traffic law ever written.  I no longer am comforted by their presence in my area, I am fearful of them, and the brute force they use to get almost anything they want.

Now, I don't mean any offense if you're one of the 3 deputies on the Lake County Sheriff's department that aren't doing something illegal, but chances are pretty damn close to 100% that every single one of them has broken Illinois State, and federal laws while "doing their job" and for that they get no leeway from me, look to our court system for that leeway.  Remember, if they've ever arrested anyone for UUW, or AUUW they have committed perjury by my interpretation.   We are living in a state where the Rule of Law only applies to citizens, lovingly referred to as "worms" by many in positions of perceived power. Unless, you're dumb enough to do something so blatant, in public, and in another state, it's nearly impossible to get the crime answered for.

Jack Johnson, a three-year deputy with the Lake County Sheriff's Office, has been charged with one count of false imprisonment while armed and one count of attempted second degree sexual assault while armed by the Kenosha County state's attorney's office, said Sgt. Christopher Thompson of the Lake County Sheriff's Office.

He was charged in Wisconsin, not Illinois with these crimes. Hey dumbass, keep it on this side of the border and you'd have the full protection of Lake County's wonderful Internal Affairs department.

Chicago's "Reasonable" New Ordinances

There's already been a lawsuit filed against Chicago's "reasonable" new gun laws.   I say "reasonable" in quotes because they are not reasonable at all, some guy who hates guns just keeps referring to the laws like that.   That would be Mayor Daley, who fell off the reasonable tree, and broke every branch on the way down and couldn't up it again to save his life.

"We believe that Chicago's ordinance is a reasonable attempt to balance the right of individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense with the substantial risks to public safety that are associated with the proliferation of firearms,"

The Ordinance itself must have read the last 2 major gun related Supreme Court decisions that states the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, and it APPLIES TO EVERYONE.   So you can see how it's reasonable to make a law that mandates, only ONE individual in every household may have a functioning firearm at any time.   Wait... so if an Armed Criminal breaks into your house... is the homeowner, or criminal violating the ordinance... oooh, it's Chicago, so it's both of them, I get it!   Hey Chicagoans, this is your chance, don't re-elect ANY of the officials that voted for this piece of crap ordinance, that's 46 people you need to replace with people who don't suffer from whatever learning disability these 46 people have that makes it so they can't figure out that banning guns doesn't work.  

Journalistic Asshole: Mark Karlin

Today I'm taking a look at the Journalists who report against liberty, and analyse their "beliefs". Mark Karlin is a Chicago area journalist who was not terribly happy with the supreme court decision that Chicago's handgun ban was unconstitutional. So let's look at his own words that fall like drool from his fingers, seething with unintelligent drivel.

It's about white males in America feeling threatened by becoming a minority and the gun is their last psychological reassurance of entitlement power against an encroaching demographic change in our democracy.

Mark Karlin thinks handgun ownership in Chicago is about white males. When I walk around Chicago, and look at the people who would benefit from protection from criminals with guns, white males doesn't seem to come to mind. I theorize that Mark Karlin is most afraid of good citizens who are black owning handguns. He portrays this fear by bashing white males, while skirting the "race" and gender issue altogether about how he feels about black males owning guns, or white females, or Hispanic females. I am entirely in support of every good citizen of this country being able to own a gun and protect themselves, and possibly others. The more good people with guns, the more the scale is shifted towards the side of good. Mark Karlin with his Yale degree, and six figure income must not understand that very much, he probably only associates with like-minded individuals with nothing intelligent to say.

After all, the City of Chicago allows citizens to own rifles, so there never was a ban on guns in Chicago; there was a ban on a certain type of gun, which didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was written.

This tender gutted sack of  slow moving white meat then attempted to claim Chicago allowed you to have rifles.   Sure they did, if you jumped through some registration permit hoops, and made sure to buy a rifle that wasn't on an expansive "assault weapons" list and you could justify for hunting purposes (hint: Illinois doesn't allow rifle hunting).  Keep in mind, the most common home defense weapon ever, the Remington 870 shotgun is on the Chicago list of assault weapons.  In fact, if you could fire a rifle without getting burned by it, you weren't allowed to own it in Chicago

"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel,"

Then of course Daley turns around and decides his armed thug squad needs some of these banned items.   Mark shows his lack of historical knowledge by making the claim that handguns did not exist at the time the constitution was written.  Really asshole?  Then what is this you tubby piece of future worm food!?

That sure looks like a concealable handgun to me, Circa 1780!?  A full eleven years before the constitution was penned!   Or how about this nice 1750 model?

Apparently a Yale education isn't worth the price, because this man has officially printed lies.  This coming from some asshole who wants his readers to go to his site to see the news through a "pro-democracy lens."   I hope Mark realizes that in a democracy, the majority could vote to take his overstated paychecks away from him just for being an asshole.  What Mark doesn't realize, probably due to his substandard, overpriced education, is that America is a Republic.  This is a nation that was supposed to exist of laws that protected people from the harsh controls of the government.... So what if that backfired, and now we have Pan-troglydyte's like Mark Karlin preaching about how great democracy is, and how we had no handguns in the late 1700's so no one could conceive of controlling them.  Congratulations Mark, you're an asshole!